Thank you. All right. So, happy spring. Let's see. In accordance with the open public meeting act 1975, chapter 231, adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the township has been provided.
If you all please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay. Um Ted asked to be excused from this evening's meeting. >> Councilman Embar >> here. Robert Lort >> here. >> Mark Dancy, >> Jennifer Ragnau
>> here, >> Mahir Rafi >> here, >> Charles Brown >> here, >> Robert Thomas >> here, >> Sammy Siobhan, >> and Chairman Marcini >> here. >> All right, so we have uh two sets of minutes. The first one, February 4th,
2026. Um I'll make a motion to approve those minutes. >> Uh I just want to say Sham Sammy's just walking in right now. So, I'm going to mark him here. >> Looking looking >> um and only Mark Dancy cannot vote on this and he's not here. So, I'll call the role as soon as Sammy gets situated.
>> I need a second, I think, to the motion. >> Oh, sorry. >> Second. >> There we go. >> Councilman and Barson. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau. Yes. >> Mir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Charles Brown. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes.
>> Sammy Siobhan. >> Oh, wait. You weren't here. Never mind. Uh, Chairman Rini. >> Yes. >> Um, regular meeting minutes from February 18th, 2026. I move to approve. >> Second. >> Second. >> Councilman Invar,
>> yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragno, >> yes. >> Mir Rafi, >> yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman or Zini, >> yes. >> All right. No resolutions. A discussion extension of time for 789 Hamilton.
Matt, you're up. >> This one might be dead. >> No, you just have to push the button. That's all. >> Oh, it may be a button on the side. Is that one of those remote things? I think there's a side one and a >> should be the big button on top.
>> Yep. >> Good evening, members of the board. For purposes of the record, Matt Flynn from Savo Shock Law on behalf of the applicant, 789 Hamilton LLC. Uh the site is block 225, lot 6 through 15 in your highway business district zone. This is
a project that received approval back on June 21st, 2023 for a three-story mixeduse building with um about 2,300 foot of retail and 25 apartment units. Uh we received a subsequent one-year extension of time. uh that uh approval
will now expire on June 21st, 2026. So, we are requesting our second uh extension under the municipal land use law for a one-year extension of time through June 21st, 2027. The reason for the extension being that we are still working out details with the county
planning board. They gave us feedback in early March uh last month, and we are endeavoring to respond to that and should be resubmitting to them uh this week or next week. So, we ask for a one-year extension through June 21st, 2027.
>> Just let the record show that Mark Dancy's here. >> Noted. Thanks. Any questions from the board? >> All right. Well, good luck with the county and make a motion to approve an extension to June June 21st, 2027.
>> Second. Councilman Embarson, >> yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mark, I'm not going to call you just because you're just walking and you didn't hear the whole summation. Um, Jennifer Ragnau, >> yes. >> Mah Rafi, yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes.
>> Sammy Siobhan, I am going to call you. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Rini, >> yes. >> Okay. Um, public comment. So, this uh section of the meeting is for anybody who wants to make a general planning comment. if you are here for our one
hearing very brief hearing uh SDAM Associates um that we can we'll open to the public for that separately. So with that I make a motion to open to the public for general planning comment. >> I'll make a motion. >> No, I made it. You'll second it. There you go.
>> Uh all in favor. >> Um meeting is open to public for any general planning comment. >> Going once, twice, three. Okay. Seeing no takers, move to close. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> We'll do that later. We'll have the hearing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We'll just do that. Yeah. Even though it's on the Yeah. All right. So, with nomination, the the one discussion item I had, we're going to we'll do that after the hearing. We'll get these guys on their way. Um so, with that, uh our one hearing tonight is Saddam Associates, uh
PLN 26004. Matt, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for purposes of the record, Matt Flynn from Savo Shaw Law on behalf of the applicant, Sedam Associates, in connection with its application before you for minor subdivision approval with bulk variances. The lot in question is
designated as block 57.01, lot 32.01, and your tax records with frontage along Skilman's Lane. Uh, brief history of the site. Back in 2008, the township actually acquired an agricultural development easement over the entire parcel as well as the parcel across the
street on Skillman's block 85 lot 61.03. That easement, which was recorded with the county, it is a perfected easement uh and was provided as part of our submission preserved over 130 acres of farmland in perpetuity in accordance with township and county programs for
land preservation. We're here tonight because the easement, the development easement in question, uh, contains certain quote severable exception areas, one of which allows for the future subdivision and development of this proposed lot restricted, albeit to a
single family residential use, which is we're complying with. Um, and if I could just share my screen, I'm plugged in. something. There we go. >> There we go. Okay. And uh Mr. Vinola, if we could mark this as exhibit A1. Uh
this is the um tract uh referenced in the easement. Okay. >> So, this map here um shows the entire easement tract. This lot is the subject lot. The lot to the north is the lot across the street that I referenced.
What we're proposing is to subdivide this small exception area. You can see my cursor. Uh for the creation of a 1acre lot for the future development of a single family home. Just for purposes of the record, we're not planning any construction as of this time. We're not
getting into into any construction details. Those will all be handled at the building permit phase. All we're seeking today is to create this subdivided lot that's an exception area from the development easement. So, because the underlying zoning is part of
a larger agricultural zone, uh some bulk variances are required, which we did notice. Minimum lot area is 6 acres required. We're proposing one. Minimum lot frontage 400 ft required. We're proposing 199 and minimum rear yard 200
feet required 50 feet proposed. U put simply the purpose of this application is just to implement what was already considered and approved by the township in exchange for the grant of this easement as part of the larger preservation project for this site. So with me tonight I have one witness,
Michael Ford of Van Clee Engineering to testify about the proposed subdivision and the relief we're requesting. Uh, and unless there are any questions from the board, I'd ask to have Mr. Ford sworn in. >> Be good. All right. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. Okay. >> Michael Ford, FOD, with Van Clee Engineering Associates, 32 Brower Lane, Hillsboro, New Jersey. >> Mike, Michael, are your are your credentials the same as they have been in the past?
>> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Since you have testified before this board many many many times, I don't think I need you to go chapter inverse. So, >> um if they're the same and you're testifying they're the same, I am um um qualifying. >> Great. Um Michael, would you like the HDMI or are you going to testify?
>> No, the exhibit you have is fine and uh um I think this is a straightforward minor subdivision application. It's consistent with the prior a easement. In fact, the prior a easement is uh basically the reason for the relief
requested tonight. That is the the severable exception area was defined at the time of the 2008 agricultural development easement which limited development of the property to this exception area that we're speaking
to to this evening to a 1acre size uh where six is acres is required in the AG zone the underlying zone. the lot width or the frontage of the lot is uh just shy of 200 feet or 199 where the
underlying AG zone requires 400 ft. And because of the exceptional small size of the lot, the rear yard setback of the AG zone is 200 feet, whereas we're asking for relief to uh locate the dwelling 50
feet from the rear property line. uh will comply with all the other um bulk standards in the AG zone. And as um has been stated uh at the time of the building permit application, we'll deal with all of the details that are
associated with a construction permit to be issued for a dwelling such as the detailed plot and grading plan, soil testing of the location of the dwelling. Um and um I'll say for the record, we do
have uh a pending application with the Franklin Township Sewage Authority for the connection and you'll see uh if if it can be highlighted right now that you have the plan right there that was even contemplated at the time of the A
easement acquisition in 2008 that along the page left or the east or the west side of the property there's an existing sanitary sewer trunk line. And this 1 acre exception area includes a narrow little sliver of land that'll connect to
that uh trunk line easement so that the public sewer can be provided for the proposed dwelling. >> So the property will be on public sewer but it it is going to be on well. Correct. >> Correct. >> So um just just for the record it is the
is the Azone. Uh I know many many many comp you know municipalities have a different just want to make sure >> basically these variances are created because it's a 1acre lot and not a 6acre lot. >> Correct. Um, would it be your testimony that to
the casual observer driving by on Skilman's Lane that the property when subdivided and if if and when a house is built uh would look that it was on like maybe I don't know 50 or 100 acres because if
I don't know if you can bring up Mark the the TRC graphic which I like better if you can bring it up kind of show where it is and and and what other I mean it's near no other buildings uh if you look at the area there. So I mean from a planning perspective, right, you
can't tell whether that's going to be a 1acre lot or a 6acre lot or a 20acre lot. >> You're absolutely correct. >> Right. Those are the only questions I have. >> Yeah. Ju and just to clarify, you did testify to this, but just to um uh again
just to clarify. So basically when this was preserved uh when was it? 2005 >> 2008 >> basically it was contemplated during that preservation process that there would be this one area basically carved
out for the purpose of a house. >> This area. Yes. Correct. >> Yes. And then you're here now because it it's currently part of the larger lot and you're here because you have to formally carve it out by subdivision. But the easement basically kind of took
that area out with the contemplation all along. The plan all along was for this to be a >> severable or or or exception from that easement area. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. I just want to make sure the board understood that. >> So, so, so to say that differently, they wouldn't be able to then go ahead and
put more of those around there. >> Yeah. My understanding is that the easement there there's another sever exception >> there are there are I think >> there's another non severable exception area along our frontage on route 27
and then the the main farmstead in the middle of the property is in a non-severable exception area >> to and to answer your question there there is one additional severable area that is across Skilman's lane that we have not proposed to develop at this
time um but the easement uh specifically carves out and turning back to A1 where these areas are. So as you can see this is the area that we're talking about subdividing now >> just to the north. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And then otherwise it's preserved
>> and otherwise and it remains so in perpetuity. It's recorded with the county. Any development um that would take place outside the confines of these limited exceptions uh you would be in violation of the easement. >> Okay. Okay. Great.
>> So, is is the intended purpose of uh the subdivision for a future house that is uh for the owners or is it going to be for for sale? >> The intention right now is for the developer to sell it to his son who's in the audience.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> But that's there's no restriction. If it's sold to somebody, >> you could sell it to anyone, but the intention is to provide a home for the family. And that's not that's just for the board's information. That's not an
uncommon thing to do in farmland preservation. >> The exception areas. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> It's not uncommon at all. >> Not at all. >> I mean, the idea is to preserve the agricultural use and generally things
don't farm themselves. So, it's nice to, you know, be able to have that continuity um in a farming family. >> The only other thing I'd add for purposes of the record is we do have the TRC memo. Just to be clear, there's a couple comments here about storm water
and drainage. Um, we are punting these issues to the time of building permit. So, we're not commenting on th those notes that are raised by Mr. Healey. That'll be handled in house. Otherwise, we can comply with the recommendations of the TRC memo at this time.
>> Well, were the board to act favorably on the application, we would just make it conditional upon your satisfying all of outside agencies, be they Somerset County Soil Conservation, which doesn't seem to have an issue with anything. Um,
FTSA, um, you know, all the all the comp you you know how it goes, right? >> No, I do. The only the only reason I raise it is there's a note here that specifically mentions uh it appears constructing a basement is not feasible. We haven't done that the testing to verify whether so we don't want to
condition imposed to that effect. We want to punt that issue to the time of building permit. >> So I mean you can work that out with construction, right? >> Yeah. And again I well for what it's worth it it's um as the board knows this is a a review by the full TRC. So, as a
planner, I wouldn't comment on that issue, but I but that is an issue for building permit. That's not something that you would be looking at. And and when the board when the TRC writes note, that's almost kind of like a warning, if you will, to the applicant to be aware of that issue. >> I just wanted to get ahead of it.
>> Yeah. >> And the only reason that this is coming to the board and not just our minor subdivision committee is because it has variances. >> And and just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Flynn was pointing it out because they want to be able to perfect the subdivision within the time
for a minor subdivision and they don't want to be um you know caught up with compliance with items that are due at the time of building permit which aren't going to necessarily be uh for it could be for years depending on when they want to develop the parcel. So that's you know they'll be accepted out as items
for compliance in order to perfect the subdivision. There'll still be things that need to be addressed just not in order to perfect. Michael, can you give me like a one-s sentence thing for the record that justifies in your expert planning opinion the uh flexible sea? Um I'm sure you're going for
>> Yeah, there there's no detriment to the neighbors you pointed out earlier. In fact, I'll get add even greater detail to that. One of the underlying requirements of the Azone is a 100 foot front yard setback. So when you drive down Skilman Lane, this dwelling will
look as far back as any other complying dwelling in the A zone on a sixacre lot. It'll not be any closer to the road, if you will. So uh uh that's part of why we actually uh seek sought the relief for
the rear yard setback. Um, and it's complying with u the visual aspects and the the intent of the a zone where you're preserving agricultural uses or promoting agriculture uses.
>> So even your master plan is is uh advanced by virtue of the 2008 action by the township as well as today's action. So your testimony is that the variances uh the positive criteria substantially outweigh the negative in this
>> correct? >> I know we're not getting into design yet, but I want to imagine the property should it change ownership uh and one want to sort of erect any sort of I would say vertical amenities
such as fences where it would not no longer give the impression that it's on a larger lot. Um, just want some feedback on on those considerations, too. Now, it makes sense. Same family, same ownership, but should I buy it and
want to go vertical, put a wall behind it on a side of it? How might that change the way we look at this? Well, the the underlying a zone uh has a requirement of six acres, but it doesn't preclude an applicant or or or a family
owner to erect the house on one acre of that six acres, farm the other five acres, and to delineate between those two acres, put up a fence in in closing that one acre area. So the the Azone
doesn't really uh restrict or or even deter an action just like what you just described that could happen with this case. >> Like if there was a pool or something >> Yeah. >> Correct. Well, I I think I think the point and
correct me Charles if I'm wrong that if you were to put like I don't know right right now right you're we we're saying okay one acre doesn't look different 6 acres 10 or 15 acres it's wide open if I were to put a a very beautiful white picket fence around the entire thing now
you are clearly delineating and and I think what Charles is getting at is that now sort of really does not like give you the visual right now now I understand what you're saying is that being a home and there's no restriction. I mean, farms have fences. It's just
that depending on what fence you would have, it would sort of give the impression that it's not a contiguous piece of land that's open and agricultural, but now it's a subdivided little lot. So, um I think that's what I mean. Yeah.
>> Yeah, I understand the feedback. Um, >> but what what you're basically saying is if construction code allows a fence, right, and then the planning board's not going to be able to say don't put up a fence because >> Yeah. I mean, my understanding in Franklin is that if you go in for a
fence, you have to get a permit. Yeah. >> So, it would be handled at that permitting. Again, same with the house. We're we're just we're not we're not here to propose >> what the house is going to look. We're just creating the lot pursuant to the plan. And all of these issues are worked out down the line.
>> Yeah. But it's a matter it's a matter of like what we're saying now versus later, right? We're saying a lot of these things because we can imagine the house with continuous property. >> Whereas, you know, when you get to the permit, we would want to make it noted that we made that decision based upon
what we foresee it being continuous property. But if you were to come today and had said a fence around it, I think we would treat the variances much differently. I I mean, I'm open to suggestions. I I don't know precisely precisely what you're looking for. >> What I'm saying is I wouldn't want a
fence. I would want it as I imagine it today. >> So, what if I guess moving down the line, what if this applicant uh or his son wanted to put a pool in? Are you saying that the pool wouldn't be able to have a fence even though that would be required by code? Like, is the intention
>> I don't think the pool would be up against the property boundary? >> Okay. So the suggestion is do not fence the property boundary. >> Correct. >> Is that an acceptable condition? Just not fence the entire property boundary. >> No, I mean do you want to talk about it for too much?
>> I want I weigh in on this a little bit, >> Mr. Brown. Can maybe maybe I could help like the the Azone if this were a sixacre lot. complying. There's nothing in the Azone that would preclude an applicant from
putting a fence up >> right >> around the 1acre parcel. The other the opposite too is you could they could they could agree to and I'm just thinking out loud as a gearhead engineer. You they could agree to not
put a a fence around this lot, but then the farmer could come up and put a fence up around the 102 acres that remains if they turned it into, you know, an equin >> Yeah. >> facility.
>> Yeah. I mean it it is more of a construction code thing and I mean >> I just wanted to note it now that I'm making a >> no I determination based upon how we perceive this to be you know if it's cut out it's cut out if it's not it's not you're giving testimony that it would
give the appearance that it's not a separate plot formally it would be but perception wise it would not it does matter perception wise if we're imagining this as 1 acre versus 6 plus >> well I think the other positive you have about this is we've been focusing on the
1acre lot, >> but we've also talked about the 102 acres remaining. So, it's not like you'll ever have a situation where you'll have another house on either side of this on what appears to be like a 1acre lot. So it from the perspective of
the vastness of land surrounding this. >> Yeah. >> It's the it's the five acres that's part of the 102 that surrounds this that preserves that view as if it were a six acre lot because that five acres that's part of the 102 that's is deed restricted only
to agricultural use will always be agricultural use. But the agricultural use could include multiple little pens and fences for like right now it's a field but it could be an agricultural use that's >> a entertainment or animal.
>> I'm only speaking to what your testimony was. >> You painted a picture of that it would be a continuous view of property. Thus, some of the things that we've raised as issues shouldn't be issues for that reason except that there's a possibility of offense which completely changes how
you all presented the property. That's it. >> Okay. >> I think and I'm going to differ a little bit here. I understand the uh effect that they're trying to uh arrange, but the problem seems to be partly that we
don't have too many 100 acre farms in Franklin. So, they're trying to preserve a view. This is a case where I think we're overregulating. In my short lifespan, I've driven and visited many farms. You go anywhere
through the Midwest, just anywhere in Pennsylvania, South Jersey, you get a house and a fence around it in the middle of a farm. The fence can be to keep out some of the farm stock. You can
almost make a case that the fence around a house in a field like this is part of the agricultural zone. It may spoil our contemplated view a little bit, but I don't think it's our duty to to regulate
that. I mean, farmers have fences. Yeah. If nothing else, they fence in animals in within larger open areas. I just think we're kind of >> I just think those places he's mentioning in Pennsylvania are not before us at this time. And based on
what you've stated, this is not an application for the remaining part. This is for the parcel that we're talking about and I'm just saying imagine if there was a fence the way that you presented the property we would view it differently. If you have an objection to that, fine. I just want that denoted
that I made the comment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Any other board comments? If not, um move to open to the public for any comment on this application. >> Can I get a second? >> Okay, I get a second. Um seconded. All
in favor? >> I. >> If you do have a question, can you come to the microphone and uh give your name and address? And um you don't have to be sworn in if you're not giving testimony, but we do need to record you. It should be on too.
>> There's no stool. >> No. Right. >> Um hi, my name is You can hear me. My name is Dolores Christmas. I'm at three Castle Court. So I'm in countryside right behind Sudan Farm. So, of course, I got this letter about this hearing, which is the reason why I'm here, trying
to understand um if there's any impact to my property. Based on what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like it because you're talking about subdividing an area close to Skillman and the farm goes all the way back to where I am.
>> So, you just gave this to me as FYI, basically. >> Yeah, we're required to do that. We have to notice from 200 feet out of the entire parcel. So you're right that the subdivision is this small portion of the farm along Skilman's right here.
>> Right. Okay. So then I'm okay with that. >> Sounds good. And appreciate you appreciate you coming out. Many people throw that away and then learn things and then go to social media and complain. So much much rather have you here.
>> Thank you. If there's no one else, move to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Matt, any summation? >> I would just ask the the board to approve this application based on what the township put um what the township
considered when it uh purchased the development restrictions over the vast majority of this parcel. What we're talking about is a 1acre exception. And one other thing that I think is important to emphasize here is is that that was part of the negotiations when
this when this easement was created that there that there would be these small exception areas not overdeveloped or restricted to single family but small places where very limited development could occur in exchange for the preservation of over 130 acres of
farmland in perpetuity for the township. So he had asked you that for that reason specifically and all the reasons cited by Mr. Ford that the variance criteria is met by this application and should warrant an approval tonight.
>> Thanks ma'am. Um I will make a motion to approve uh the application uh with the three variances um and uh conditioned upon the applicant satisfying all staff and outside agency reports. I'll second.
>> Second. >> Councilman Embarson. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mark Dancy. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Ragno. >> Yes. >> Mahia Rafi. >> Yes. >> Charles Brown. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes.
>> Sammy Siobhan. >> Yep. >> Chairman Orsini. >> Yes. >> And thank you for your time this evening. >> Yep. >> All right, folks. There's one little other piece of business I want to take care of. Um um and that is the this this ordinance
committee. So um the last planning board meeting we had, we went over and and rated and ranked uh or put into tiers, if you will, um the suggestions um of things we want to do related to the master plan.
Um Mark suggested and I concurred that it would be great to have a four-person ordinance subcommittee that could uh meet um and and basically he could provide his uh draft ordinances and this
committee would have a first look and say, you know, is he on the right track? Is it doing what? Now, for simple things like a reasonzoning, I think you're going to say, well, I I I don't know why you're doing this, Mike. this is but as we get into maybe more complicated things I think it will it will prove
useful as a first look. Um I am agnostic whether I'm there. Um but I don't even know that the board is or that this subcommittee would really even have to meet. It may just be a matter of you get first look at the draft
ordinances by email. you make your comments to Mark and then Mark incorporates those and comes back and then we have a full board discussion. Um it may be something we could do over Zoom or Teams or something if we actually did need a small subcommittee meeting. It needs to be four people.
It's less than a quarter. So anyone volunteering I um I think it's a good opportunity. Um very little work I don't think. um very good way to just be more familiar with the master plan and things like that.
>> Are you talking about people who already said that they wanted to be on certain things? >> I I I am talking about any anybody who wants to do this. >> Uh I'm talking about anybody who wants to do this. I mean we have a minor subcommittee. I think we have uh the
people who uh volunteered to be maybe I think two people or three whatever two people um uh for the open space uh element of the master plan that Tara Kenyon's doing along with other board members on the environmental commission and stuff. So we have a couple people doing that. Um I don't mind anybody
wanting to do double or triple duty. Um but I'd also like to see like new people doing doing stuff. Uh again, I think very very little lift. I'm I don't see anyone waving hands here, but I don't >> I'll volunteer as tribute. >> Thank you. Thank you. I think you're I
think you will enjoy it. >> No, it's it's fine. For me, it it just depends. Like I like that you suggested teams and I like that you suggested via email because meeting times get tricky. >> Yeah. And I know that and I think I think that I think given what the goal
of this subcommittee is to do as to you know now you could you could do the you know sort of like some people may want to look at the language and and whatever right um some people would just say if the zoning was supposed to go you a
and this is is the rationale right and things like that you're reading it and you can give those comments in the document without ever meeting and mark and coate those comments. ments and then it just gives us a bless you. It gives us a first >> cool getting emails from me. That's
>> Yeah. No, I mean I I think that's I think that's the thing. I I don't look at this as >> I volunteer. >> All right. >> By email. >> Mark, we got Mark. >> All right. See, I'm I'm selling. >> Sammy, are you still in Somerset County Planning Board? >> No.
>> Well, this is a good way to like, you know, get into that. What do you think? >> All right, we got four. There you go. >> Jen, Charles, Sammy, Mark, Dansancy. >> And now that they've volunteered, I reserve the right for a quick Zoom call
if necessary. >> Exactly. You I did not agree to those terms. >> Mike, who's the four? Jen, >> uh Jen, Charles, Mark, Dancy, and Sammy. >> Oh, Mark Dancy. Okay. And so, um, yeah, that's that's that's
really I mean there's there's board comment section. I I don't really I have too much actually. The the environmental stewardship class that I'm taking um all the last class was all about environmental commissions. It was very interesting. Um I did not realize that
uh some of the things about how environmental commissions are set up. Um every township is required to have one. Um I also learned as we did I think when we did the master plan that climate change and how to address climate change has to
be actually part of the master plan now. So you know I don't think you know Franklin is not beachfront property but we have flooding and things like that. So that that resilience of like don't build in the flood plane um it should inform our our master plan. So that was cool to learn but um nothing
nothing earthshattering um from the planning standpoint that the the chair I think the head of who taught it was the um head of ANJ which is association of New Jersey environmental commission. So it was it was interesting to learn uh what what your environmental
commission does. So um and of course we read their reports and um you know when they when they review development applications but you know they they they do they do a lot more. So, um, that that was cool to learn, but other than that, um, nothing earthshattering I can think
of. Anybody else have anything any issues around town? No. >> No. Okay. >> Um, I I'm still open if you would like to get anybody from Blouse on that rail
to trail thing. We can like discuss that. I don't want that to drop because I think that it's a wonderful project. >> All right. Um I'll I won't pratt on anymore. Um motion to adjourn. >> All in favor? All right. We are going to
meet again in uh what